User talk:Martinphi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1   Archive 2   Archive 3   Archive 4   Archive 5   Archive 6   Archive 7

Archive 8

Controversy in parapsychology    Paranormal primer

This user is a part of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This user is a member of WikiProject ReallyRational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with sciences, protosciences, pseudosciences and skepticism. An unverified truth is a lie.

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many excellent contributions to the parapsychology article as well as your many contributions to the area as a whole. - Solar 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many outstanding contributions to paranormal articles. - Dreadlocke ☥ 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Mediumship 2 BOLD 3 Mediumship 4 Inappropriate advocacy 5 Ft. Meade building torn down. 6 Psychic 7 RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Martinphi) 8 Under what right 9 Parapsychology

---

---

[edit] Mediumship

Didn't John Edward define the various aspects of Mediumship in one of his books? (eg mental mediumship). We could use his book as a source for that, couldn't we? Dreadlocke ☥ 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone on one of the "purported" category discussions pointed out a guideline that said categories couldn't be cited, and therefore couldn't be used in controversial situations. Do you remember seeing that? Dreadlocke ☥ 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah! Bios is perfect! Where was that? I'm taking on the issue (against who else?) here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#New_category. With that cat, and the meaning of 'purported', we're essentially calling everyone a liar who has had that cat applied to them. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording wasn't as strong as I remembered, but I don't think it justifies calling all the people liars. Or am I overstating the situation? Dreadlocke ☥ 23:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to rename it, I'd suggest Mediumship (Spiritualism). Although, I don't really think it's necessary - it is after all a concept that arose from Spiritualism, what else would it be cornfused with?) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

These guys are unbelievable. They've latched onto this "vague" thing when it comes to words that I would like to use, but have no trouble wanting to use "purported", which is not only vague, but very damnning in most of it's uses. And self-described isn't vague? It can mean several things too. Unbelievable. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then an apparent SPA himself makes this comment: [1]. Take a look at his contributions, I'd say 95% are about the Edward article. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOLD

BOLDNESS is good :-) Shot info 05:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediumship

Just to let you know, I didn't say God/good. The highest level of spirit, according to the idea, is a nondual awareness beyond the duality of good and evil. Good and evil are all lower level stuff.

This isn't about the article. I'm done with it. This is a personal conversation. But read what your guy Butler is saying. He's not talking about good and evil either. He's saying in the example of Hitler, that he was misguided, confused to his true self, spirit. He's saying that just because he died and went to the spirit world that he's not more enlightened. That's not what I was saying either. I'm saying that the spirit world, according to the belief, is a higher vantage point. It can see both the physical and the spiritual world, thus it is more inclusive than the physical world that, without the aid of mediums, can only see the physical.

See how that is more advanced? It's not about good and evil, it's vantage points. You might want to ask yourself if the concept of good and evil is more your beliefs or that of Spiritualists. I think you'll find that there's concepts of morality there, but not one of evil as evil is usually defined. Instead they'll use terms like misguided, or confused, or less enlightened. Planes of hell aren't places like in the Bible, they're states of division from spirit.

That's the concept. Read up on it and you'll see that they aren't thinking of evil and negativity like you are. They're thinking in terms of less enlightenment. Enlightenment, of course, being the nondual awareness beyond positive and negative.

You'll find a lot of references to mediums talking to ghosts that don't know they're dead. That's the ones that aren't anymore enlightened after death. They can't see a spirit world around them. Mediums often try to help them move towards the light, in other words become aware that they are dead. More advanced.

When looking for spiritual insight, they are looking for the spirits that are aware of their condition and can talk about it. The more advanced ones.

Get the idea? --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 05:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate advocacy

This [2] constitutes inappropriate advocacy. Please do not do this again. We know that believers in paranormal phenomena consider Wikipedia's articles to have a realist bias, this is a natural consequence of our neutral point of view policy which demands that we reflect orthodox opinion. The world in general, especially the scientific community, dismisses the majority of paranormal phenomena as either nonsense or explicable by some mundane alternative. Wikipedia is not the place to fix that and inviting people to go to a website which encourages people to try and use Wikipedia to fix something that is not Wikipedia's problem is not appreciated. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Silliness. I put that on her page, because however non-NPOV she may be, she probably needs a bit of compassion. Otherwise, she might feel like she is the only one with problems on Wikipedia. I wasn't trying to fix anything, nor, as far as I know, does the website encourage people to fix something (which you would know if you had read it). And if I want to do it again, I will. It is not against the rules. Thank you. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This might clear things up: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist#Welcoming new users. --Minderbinder 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It might.... but it doesn't. The priorities of the encyclopedia involve NPOV, and thus the link was relevant.

Furthermore, I was not the first welcomer. I did give her a welcome, but as it was not the first, and was relevant to her actual edits, it should be seen more as a talk page post. Not, of course, that this matters. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ft. Meade building torn down.

An episode of the progarm "The Unexplained: Remote Sensing" on the Biography Channel, aired 4/1/2007 12-1pm MDT stated and showed a photograph that the building WAS torn down at Ft. Meade. I did not catch the date of the episode, and the channel guide did not have the next repeat of this story. Further internet searches on the Bio Channel and other sources may find other information. LanceBarber 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC) LanceBarber 19:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I was responding to you from your respond to Minderbinder, in Talk:Remote Viewing Page...

This information is cited to a specific source - why has it been repeatedly deleted? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall rightly, the source only said that it was going to be shut down, and it's dated, so we need a source saying it actually was. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume that this was your statement as the link led me to you. Just provide addition information to the Talk... If I have misunderstood the converation and links, please remove all of our edits... Sincerely, LanceBarber 21:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychic

Isn't the summary supposed to summarize what's in the article? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be looked at that way. Another way to look at it is that it outlines the topic and not necessarily the article about the topic. Like if we were to set up sections for psychics on TV, psychics in Pop Culture, psychics in ____, the intro wouldn't have a statement about each of the different sections, just about the topic overall. On this particular article I moved it down to the section itself because that's the part that might be controversial. If someone thought it was, they could tag the section, not the intro. Psychic isn't all about the research, after all, and the first paragraph of the intro already defined the topic. If anything, the second paragraph was defining a tone for the article, one that the article might not end up taking.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Martinphi)

Hello, Martinphi. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi, where you may want to participate.

Martinphi

-- Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You should probably wait until the RFC gets approved before preparing your response. Other certifiers are able to add to it. If this happens, what you write may be rendered out-of-date. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this RfC was brought "solely to harass or subdue an adversary", which is not permitted. I can't see any other reason for it. Martin is a good editor who always edits in good faith and with great civility. I hate to see witchhunts like this. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The RFC is totally absurd and the sole purpose is to intimidate Martin. I have endorsed purpleblue's opinion on the RFC. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 04:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under what right

Re "under what rule you have the right to delete one of my user pages", that would be the deletion policy, as well as the userpage guideline, and our policy that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. >Radiant< 11:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

None of which addresses the case in question. I repeat my question: what, very specifically, gives you the right to delete this particular essay from my user space? Please answer immediately. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• The deletion policy allows users to discuss deletion of such essays that they believe are inappropriate, and allows for the deletion of such pages if said discussion shows a consensus to do so. >Radiant< 09:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Minderbinder __finally__ came up with the relevant part of the relevant page. Thanks! (= Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Minderbinder said the decission is taken by consensus. There is not consensus, so the issue is closed. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's for the closing admin to decide. --Minderbinder 12:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is necessary, and since there is no consensus, therefore the issue is closed. This follows logically from the information I have received. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, consensus is for a closing admin to determine. I'm not sure what would make you think otherwise. If you're confused about this, I'd recommend reading wikipedia deletion policy which explains it all in detail. --Minderbinder 12:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus, then there is supermajority. If consensus, there are already people there who do not agree. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you disputing that whether there's consensus is for the closing admin to decide? Or when they decide there's consensus are you going to insist that they are wrong? --Minderbinder 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what "consensus" means. If it means agreement from all parties, that is not something which can legitimately be decided to have occurred. It it means "super majority," then it occurred. There is nothing to "decide." There is only something to note. If the first definition, there is no legitimate way to decide to delete the essay. Yes, the admin would be making an illegitimate decision if the first definition is necessary. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology

No problem. I do not personally know much about parapsychology and have not substantially edited any article here on the subject, but I do believe that the paranormal does exist. I mainly edit articles on law and politics, sometimes arts as well. The issue is that I do not believe that anyone can actually "discredit" a scientific field, one can only prove a theory is wrong but not a field, because a field contain both sides. Like I can say I think Einstein is wrong, but I cannot say the whole subject of physics doesn't exist. Also I do agree that some of your views on NPOV can be actually very helpful to Wikipedia, just that many editors think you are wrong and ignore your suggestions. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)